I recently read Apocalypse Near? Liberal Actresses Line Up to Star in ‘Atlas Shrugged’  by Pam Meister and wanted to offer the perspective of someone who has experience in casting. The post told of Julia Roberts and Angelina Jolie having an interest in the role of Dagny Taggert. It was offered up, and several commenter’s mentioned that they feared Julia Roberts might change the script to reflect her liberal viewpoint. I don’t really think that should be a concern because many times certain actors are mentioned only to create buzz for a project, or to get their name out there, or both. I believe such is the case with Julia Roberts in this story.

So, for the sake of example here, let’s use Angelina Jolie, the suspected front runner. When casting at the Hollywood level, Angelina’s political leanings, opinions, beliefs and practices would not be considered. Assuming that the writer plans to stay true to the book, and the director is on the same page, an actress will not get a say in rewrites. Some actresses can demand rewrites as part of the negotiations, but such instances are rare. Normally, if she will not “play by the rules,” she does not accept the role.

This was the case when Jodie Foster was sought to reprise her role of Clarice Starling in Hannibal. Speculation was she declined the role because she didn’t like how the character in the sequel had been written.

If Angelina accepts the role it is her job to portray the character as conceived and written by the screenwriter, and defined by the director’s point of view. Of course she and director will have discussions throughout the filming process, but it won’t be to change the “bend” of the script. Whether it’s an actress being paid scale or Angelina’s $20 million paycheck, she is a hired professional first; and is expected to do her homework, get inside the character’s world and get the job done without her political persuasions seeping through.

Case in point: Calista Flockhart is a pretty well know, out-spoken liberal, and whether you like her or not, an outstanding actress. On Brothers and Sisters she plays Kitty Walker, a prominent conservative with a lot of zeal. Drawing on her technique and expertise she portrays this character passionately, with believability and depth.

Now with that said, if I were casting the movie I might consider one of the following strategies:

#1: Since the book already a has a following and is now back on the bestseller list, the movie has a built in audience. You don’t really need to cast the Hollywood heavyweights. So, let’s forget about Angelina and mainstream Hollywood for a moment and cast it with no names. OK, maybe the talented lesser known named Hollywooders. Then let’s go to Broadway where the cream of the crop actor’s are, as well as regionally where you’d be sure to find some amazing undiscovered talent. Assuming the screenplay follows the book and the director respects the material, casting stage actors is the cherry on top of this scenario. 

Mel Gibson went the way of casting the non-mainstream powerhouse actors when he cast The Passion of the Christ. The most recognizable Hollywood player was Jim Caviezel. Mel did this because he felt the story was the big star and he wanted it made true to his vision. He even started filming without outside funding or a distributor. The story and the buzz made Passion the #12 all time grossing film domestically, #3 all time grossing for the year of 2004, and #1 top grossing “R” rated film of 2004. Unfortunately it was only nominated for three Oscars: cinematography, make-up and original score. (Oh, please my nerves!) The nominations were another fatality of liberal Hollywood, much like The Dark Knight.

#2: Being a conservative and a Christian (oh yes, my friends, a double whammy against me in this business), we could do politically evangelical casting. Bring on the bitter, angry, Obama idolizing movie stars. From the table read, to rehearsals, to shooting, these liberal performer’s might start questioning their politics. Let’s take into account a movie can take between two and a half to five months to shoot, sometimes longer. That gives actors a lot of time for introspection. Furthermore, most of their time on set will be spent alone in their trailers memorizing Ayn Rand’s words and living in the world she and the director created. As the filming continues, perhaps the actors start to see the parallels between the book and the Obama agenda. At this point, with the gentle prodding by the material and its execution, the actor’s would start questioning their political beliefs and allegiance. Then once the seed of conservatism is planted, the stage is set for a sea change in the National Consciousness. Ah, one can dream!

Alas, since Hollywood is Hollywood, I think the big name, raging liberals will get the job. But fear not, whether a movie star or unknown liberal is cast, I think it’s safe to say the material will lead to a “crisis of liberal belief.” This is a good start.

My friend Kitty sent me this link to an article about the ongoing saga of turning the 1,100 page book “Atlas Shrugged,” by Ayn Rand, into a feature film:

Rand’s popular but polarizing book — it’s derided by many literary critics but has a huge public following — tells the story of Dagny Taggart, a railroad executive trying to keep her corporation competitive in the face of what she perceives as a lack of innovation and individual responsibility.

A number of stars have expressed serious interest in playing the lead role of Taggart. Angelina Jolie previously had been reported as a candidate to play the strong female character, but the list is growing and now includes Charlize Theron, Julia Roberts and Anne Hathaway.

Although it was written a half-century ago, producers say that the book’s themes of individualism resonate in the era of Obama, government bailouts and stimulus packages — making this the perfect moment to bring the 1,100-page novel to the big screen.

Rumors about Angelina Jolie’s interest in the film have been swirling about for some time, but Charlize Theron? Julia Roberts? Anne Hathaway? What’s up with that? Let’s take a look at these lovely ladies and their left-wing credentials, talented actresses though they may be:

Julia Roberts: During a fundraiser for Al Gore’s run for the presidency back in 2000, she explained her preference for Democrats over Republicans by saying the word “Republican” is right between “reptile” and “repugnant” in the dictionary. Tee hee. She also described former President George W. Bush as “embarrassing. He’s not my president and he never will be either.”

Back in 2006, Roberts was also in favor of California’s Proposition 87, which would have taxed oil to fund alternative energy research. (It ultimately failed at the voting booth.) I guess growing your own kale stamps out the carbon footprint of traveling on private jets. 

Charlize Theron: According to this bright light, Americans are just as oppressed as the good folks of Cuba. From a CNN interview:

Theron: No, but I do remember not too long ago some people getting fired from their jobs in television because they spoke up on how they felt about the war.

CNN: Do you think the lack of freedoms in Cuba are parallel to the lack of freedoms in the United States?

Theron: Well, I would, I would compare those two, yes, definitely.

Has she ever heard Dwight Schultz’s story of being called a “Reagan a**hole” by director Bruce Paltrow at Schultz’s audition for the television show St. Elsewhere? My guess would be no. Theron, like Roberts, didn’t have nice things to say about Bush either, calling “him irresponsible and taking exception with politicians in their very expensive suits and air-conditioned buildings, telling us how our soldiers are doing in Iraq. “I wonder what she thinks of her man Obama in his expensive designer suits in a wintertime toasty-warm Oval Office, telling us how our soldiers are doing in Afghanistan.

Anne Hathaway: The young woman whose road to stardom began by playing a princess of a fictional European country, is really concerned about the disparity of wealth in America. “Right now, the disparity between the uber-rich and the uber-poor, it’s worrying and it’s not getting better. We need to focus on a way to just get our economy back, to get it back on track.” By the way, Hathaway earns $5 million per film, and might be on her way to asking for $8 million. Maybe she’s talking about the disparity between her salary and that of Angelina Jolie, who earns $15 million per film…

And what about her support for Obama during the election? Was it due to his policies, his experience, his ability to get the job done? Not so much: “He inspires us to be the best Americans we can be.” Wow, that’s deep. I understand so much more now.

Frankly, out of the three, Hathaway seems to be the most obvious choice, as Theron and Roberts are just a little too long in the tooth to play the young Dagney. Darn it, there I go again with the non-PC stuff. According to the “Today Show,” 40 is the new 20. Sorry.

What’s so confusing here is that Ayn Rand’s writings reflected views that are antithetical to those held by left-wing libs, especially many in Hollywood:

Politically, Rand wanted to provide liberal capitalism with a moral foundation, to take on the prevalent notion that communism was a noble if unworkable idea while the free market was a necessary evil best suited to flawed human nature. In this she succeeded brilliantly (even if the notion that socialism failed because it has never been properly tried is still alive and well among the intelligentsia). Her arguments against “compassionate” redistribution–and persecution–of wealth have lost none of their power in the decades after they were made.

Perhaps they think the script will ultimately “improve” the book to match current politically correct views on life and society.

If these ladies are serious about being in the film, they’d best start reading the book now. Maybe they’ll be finished with it by 2010, which is when producers Howard and Karen Baldwin are hoping to start filming.

As Kitty said in her e-mail, “You’d think they wouldn’t be caught dead in a ‘conservative’ movie. Which only goes to prove that Hollywood lefties do have their price.” Seeing as the movie’s projected budget is currently in the $50 million range but could go up, I can see her point.

The reason becomes immediately apparent upon reading.  It might have been written yesterday.  Rand’s description of a socialist state taken over by “looters,” people who cannot create or produce but who seize power under the rubric of “fairness” is so spot-on accurate of today’s administration it’s scary.  At over one thousand pages long, Atlas Shrugged is not a weekend read and made me question whether my fun-loving liberal friends actually read it, or read the Cliff’s Notes version which is also selling at unprecedented levels.

In a fictional United States, three giants of industry struggle with a government of venal bureaucrats, “looters,” Rand calls them, that closely resemble our present administration. The three industrialists are Dagny Taggart, Vice President in Charge of Operations for mighty Taggart Transcontinental, steelmaker Henry Rearden whose Rearden Miracle Metal puts steel to shame, and the Chilean play boy Francisco D’Anconia who inherited the world’s richest copper mines and proceeds to turn them into dust, shocking all who know him and invested in his supposedly rock-solid enterprise.

The reasons D’Anconia liquidates his empire in secret become increasing clear as the new administration strips away individual rights. 

These are larger-than-life characters acting out their passion on an international stage. Has there ever been a more dynamic woman literary character than Dagny?  There’s a reason Angelina Jolie is eager to play her in the upcoming film.  (This will only intensify rumblings that our Most Holy of Hollywood Couples are secret libertarians.)

Dagny meets her match in Henry Rearden whose measure of a man’s worth is what he can produce.  When Rearden’s miracle metal puts other steel companies in danger, they band together, start buying off politicians and go to Washington.  Rearden is a man of utter rectitude whose word is gold.  He hates incompetence more than anything.  His men love him and willingly give their all because they know he values their contribution and will reward them accordingly.

It’s an enormous story with an enormous backdrop revealing Rand’s vast knowledge of steel-making and railroads.  She slips her objectivist philosophy into the narrative seamlessly by showing — by talking, not so much.  Characters make speeches that go on for days, most notably, D’Anconia’s passionate defense of money, any paragraph of which would have served as a synecdoche for the whole thing, and John Galt’s “I Am John Galt” speech which is 20,000 words and literally takes three hours to deliver. 

Ayn Rand

Rand anticipated the situation in which we now find ourselves. 

Dagny holds a press conference to announce she’s leaving Taggart Transcontinental to build a spur railroad called the John Galt Line:

The reporters who came to the press conference in the office of the John Galt Line were young men who had been trained to think that their job consisted of concealing from the world the nature of its events.  It was their daily duty to serve as audience for some public figure who made utterances about the public good, in phrases carefully chosen to convey no meaning…  They could not understand the interview now being given to them. 

The government comes to see Dagny’s feckless brother Jim, President of Taggart Transcontinental to complain that TT’s superior rails and service are endangering the other railroads.

“Well consider the unions’ side of it,” whines one of Atlas’ interchangeable politicians.  “Maybe you can’t afford to give them a raise, but how can they afford to exist when the cost of living has shot sky-high?  They’ve got to eat, don’t they?  That comes first, railroad or no railroad.’  Mr. Weatherby’s tone had a kind of placid righteousness, as if he were reciting a formula required to convey another meaning, clear to all of them…

“And then consider the public.  The rates you’re charging were established at a time when everybody was making money.  But the way things are now, the cost of transportation has become a burden nobody can afford.  People are screaming about it all over the country.”

So the government forces TT to increase wages to the unions while lowering rates to the customers “in the public interest.” 

The delightfully named Stanley Mouch (”Mooch”) serves as First Secretary to the mysterious Mr. Thompson, the head of state. 

Mouch had summoned them all to Washington, as his friends and personal advisers, for a private, unofficial conference on the national crisis.  But watching him, they were unable to decide whether his manner was overbearing or whining, whether he was threatening them or pleading for their help.

“Fact is,” said Mr. Weatherby primly, in a statistical tone of voice, “that in the twelve month period ending on the first of this year, the rate of business failures has doubled as compared with the preceding twelve month period.  Since the first of this year, it has trebled.”

            “Be sure they think it’s their own fault,” said Dr. Ferris casually.

            “Huh?” said Wesley Mouch, his eyes darting to Ferris.

            “Whatever you do, don’t apologize,” said Dr. Ferris.  “Make them feel guilty.” 

“But it is their own fault,” said Eugene Lawson, turning aggressively to Dr. Ferris. “It’s their lack of social spirit.  They refuse to recognize that production is not a private choice, but a public duty.  They have no right to fail, no matter what conditions happen to come up.  They’ve got to go on producing.  It’s a social imperative…  There’s no such thing as a persona matter-or a personal life.  That’s what we’ve got to force them to learn.”

“Well, if you want to talk practice,” said Fred Kinnan, “then let me tell you that we can’t worry about businessmen at a time like this.  What we’ve got to think about is jobs…  If you want my advice-ohm, I know you won’t go for it, but it’s just a thought-issue a directive making it compulsory to add, say, one-third more men to every payroll in the country.” 

Can’t you just see Rahm Emanuel, Paul Begala, Obama, Pelosi and Axelrod saying these things?  Speaking of Pelosi:

Last week I almost quit.  It was over Chick’s Special.  Mr. Chick Morrison of Washington, whoever the hell he is, has gone on a speaking tour of the whole country-to speak about the directive to build up peoples’ morale…  He demanded a special train for himself and party-a sleeper, a parlor car and a diner with barroom and lounge.  The Unification Board gave him permission to travel at a hundred miles an hour-by reason, the ruling said, of this being a non-profit journey.  Well so it is.  It’s just a journey to talk people into continuing to break their backs at making profits in order to support men who are superior by reason of not making any.   

So who is John Galt?  He’s one of three pupils of the great moral philosopher Hugh Akston.  The other two are D’Anconia and the pirate Ragnar Danneskjold.  Galt is the inventor of a new energy source that would revolutionize civilization.  But rather than turn it over to the government, he walks away.  It is Galt who vows to stop the motor of the world.  And he does.

Ragnar is Robin Hood in reverse.  “Until men learn that of all human symbols, Robin Hood is the most immoral and the most contemptible, there will be no justice on earth and no way for mankind to survive.”  Robin Hood, you see, stole from men who knew how to create wealth and gave it to people who didn’t.

Ragnar tells Rearden:

I cannot compute all the money that has been extorted from you-in hidden taxes, in regulations, in wasted time, in lost effort, in energy spent to overcome artificial obstacles.  I cannot compute the sum, but if you wish to see its magnitude-look around you.  The extent of the misery now spreading through this once prosperous country is the extent of the injustice which you have suffered.

Dagny picks up a hobo who used to be a factory worker.  He tells her what happened: 

We voted for that plan at a big meeting, with all of us present, six thousand of us, everybody that worked in the factory.  The Starnes heirs made long speeches about it, and it wasn’t too clear, but nobody asked any questions.  None of us knew just how the plan would work, but every one of us thought that the next fellow knew it-and because they made it sound like anyone who’d oppose the plan was a child-killer at heart and less than a human being. 

The government under Stanley Mouch draws up a bill called Directive 10-289 which, “in the name of the general welfare,” forbids anyone to quit their jobs under penalty of prison terms.  All business must remain in operation.  If the owners try to retire, the industry will be nationalized.

All patents and copyrights, pertaining to any devices, inventions, formulas, processes and works of any nature whatsoever, shall be turned over to the nation as a patriotic emergency gift by means of Gift Certificates to be signed voluntarily by the owners of all such patents and copyrights.

The government sends polite goons around to collect the certificates.  The directive also forbids any new inventions.  But the National Science Institute does manage to come up with an original idea of its own: a sonic ray that turns flesh to mush. 

The government nationalizes health care:

I quit when medicine was placed under State control, some years ago,” said Dr. Hendricks.  “Do you know what it takes to perform a brain operation?  Do you know the kinds of skill it demands, and the years of passionate, merciless, excruciating devotion that go to acquire that skill?  That was what I would not place at the disposal of men whose sole qualification to rule me was their capacity to spout the fraudulent generalities that got them elected to the privilege of enforcing their wishes at the point of a gun. 

I could go on.  Rand certainly does.  This book might have profited by some serious editing.  This was her last work of fiction before devoting herself entirely to laying out her philosophy of objectivism, which holds that there are absolute truths and objective means of measuring them.  The very word “objectivist” is anathema to liberals who deal in endless “sophisticated” variations of gray. 

The solution Rand offers is for the men and women of industry and business to simply withdraw their skills and energies from the market rather than place them in the service of an evil socialist state.  In “Atlas Shrugged” they go to a secret valley in the mountains.  In real life, millions of Americans are reevaluating their efforts in light of the Obama administration’s punitive and senseless tax and spend policy.  It is a viable option and one which every right-minded American must consider.  And by right-minded, I mean Americans who understand the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, to whom the pursuit of happiness is holy but the guarantee of happiness is a cruel joke perpetrated by the present gang of looters in the White House and Congress who couldn’t make a buck if their lives depended on it.